When composing a Wikipedia article, I've noticed that while the most important factor is relevant information, a
secondary and maybe equally important factor is the organization of that
information. While I was examining the McLuhan and Citron biographies, I
noticed that while there seemed to be an overwhelming amount of information
about Marshall McLuhan, it was well organized and easy to navigate, making the
McLuhan article seem like the ‘better’ article in comparison to Michelle
Citron’s succinct biography. Citron’s biography was a good summary of her
overall works, but it did not afford many opportunities for further research,
unlike the McLuhan article, which included links to his works, discussion of
his theories, and a neat outline of his more prominent key terms. I realize
that the difference between these two articles arises from the difference in
position the two subjects hold in the public eye. Marshall McLuhan is a well
known theorist and academic figure, anybody who studies media theory or
anything related to that will have heard of him. He has even appeared in a Woody
Allen film. In contrast, I have never heard of Michelle Citron or her work,
which contributes to the reason her biography is sparser than McLuhan’s.
Information about Citron is undoubtedly harder to find, as she has not yet been
the subject of biographies, nor has she had foundations formed after her, and
she is not considered the ‘father’ of a school of theory like McLuhan is. I feel like this assignment is particularly
relevant towards my group’s assigned section, which is major theories of public
sphere writing. It will be difficult, but not impossible, for us to separate
neutral facts from the battleground of separate schools of thought and the reverence
paid to certain theorists.
No comments:
Post a Comment